Let's say it was fair game to use whatever you wanted, so there is a level playing field....would that turn you off baseball because of PEDS?

Personally i dont care. They are humans who know the risks associated with them

PEDs have been in baseball for much longer than most think. Mickey Mantle used amphetamines and countless others did as well so the whole argument of "respect rhe hall of fame and the game" means jack sh1t to me.

People have always tried to get advantages in sports. I see no difference in someone using pine tar in the ball, rubbing dirt/spit on it to change the ball and how it comes off the bat/how you see it, corking a bat, stealing signs, pretending to get hit by a pitch like Jeter did etc. If the spirit of the game is so important anyone caught doing any of that should be ineligible for the hall of fame

So do PEDs bother you? And why? Is it because of the spirit of the game? Would it bother you if everyone could take them to level the playing field?

Should we remove past players from the Hall of Fame like Mickey Mantle and others who used amphetamines and other substances?

Let's not pretend former players of different eras had higher moral values because they cheated. if they had the plethora of chemicals we have available today, without a doubt many players would take them. Just so happens their drugs weren't as good as today's drugs.

State your age when answering because i am interested in the age demographic of answers

Getting an "advantage" is such a broad term. Is lifting weights an advantage because it makes you stronger?
You mentioned amphetamines and Mantle. Was this used for a distinct advantage, or just to get hung over ball players to wake up for the next days game?

My biggest issue about PED's is that it is doing something that is against the rules. You can spit/ blow on your hand as a pitcher if you are off the mound and it's governed by the umpires watching that game. If you can get away with it while on the mound, then so be it. Just understand the consequences if caught.
Pine tar is illegal. Spit is not. Corking the bat is illegal.

My main issue with the PED's is that it allows players to unnaturally extend their careers. Roger Clemens, Barry Bonds and Mark McGuire would have never attained the stats they got without them.
The comparison I always use in this argument is Barry Bonds and Ken Griffey Jr.
Griffey, by all accounts, never did any PED's. He went through the natural downward progression most ball players go through. He was probably more beaten up and he was basically a shell of himself by his mid 30's. Bonds however, enjoyed very unusual success after age 35. I not only think about "fake" success Bonds enjoyed, but what about the careers of the players he played with and against his last few years? Maybe a young pitcher's career is derailed because Bonds hit a home run or two off of him that should have been deep fly balls?
For me, it isn't about the personal health risk to the players doing PED's its the affect on the game then, and moving forward.

Amphetamines are performance enhancers. Pretty naive think otherwise and if we begin assuming it was used for hangovers than that is a slippery slope for any other drug people use. I never buy the excuse i used it coming back from injury, or it was used for this purpose. Cant bend the rules that way if you want a non ped game.

He used them, should be out of the hall no questions asked if we are concerned about a level playing field and integrity of the game

I care about things that may actually be performance enhancing. The trouble with baseball, is that back in the hey days of the steroid era, everybody was using performance enhancing substances. Does a hitter on steroids necessarily get more of a performance boost than a pitcher on steroids? I don't know the answer to that. You still have to be a very good pitcher to dominate a major league lineup and have to be a very good hitter to hit a 95 mph fastball with good contact.

I don't think the "everybody's doing it" is a good excuse and there are some things that can clearly be considered performance enhancing and should be banned.

I think the list of things that are considered "performance enhancing" is too extensive. For example, Cano was found to be using Furosemide, which is a diuretic. All diuretics are banned and labeled as performance enhancing. I suppose you could lose a few pounds from water weight, but I don't really see how else it gives you a competitive advantage in a professional sport. Drinking coffee can give a similar diuretic effect.

My opinion: The rules are very arbitrary. Caffeine is a stimulant, it's legal. Amphetamines are a stimulant, not legal. Both could similarly enhance performance. Why is one OK and the other is not? Similar arguments could be made for some of the banned PEDs vs. some of the OTC workout enhancers.

Either regulate it consistently or eliminate the rules and anything goes. I don't care. Just get rid of the arbitrary rules where the line is always moving.

I care about things that may actually be performance enhancing. The trouble with baseball, is that back in the hey days of the steroid era, everybody was using performance enhancing substances. Does a hitter on steroids necessarily get more of a performance boost than a pitcher on steroids? I don't know the answer to that. You still have to be a very good pitcher to dominate a major league lineup and have to be a very good hitter to hit a 95 mph fastball with good contact.

I don't think the "everybody's doing it" is a good excuse and there are some things that can clearly be considered performance enhancing and should be banned.

I think the list of things that are considered "performance enhancing" is too extensive. For example, Cano was found to be using Furosemide, which is a diuretic. All diuretics are banned and labeled as performance enhancing. I suppose you could lose a few pounds from water weight, but I don't really see how else it gives you a competitive advantage in a professional sport. Drinking coffee can give a similar diuretic effect.

It is a masking agent and studies done on horses have been mixed to say the least. Some suggest it is has similar effects that milkshaking has on horses.

I dont think it is an enhancer but allows horses to run to their ability if they suffer from EIPH. It is used for completely different reasons in horses than in humans

A recent study that hasnt been published actually suggests it hurts performance if the horse doesnt suffer from EIPH.

My opinion: The rules are very arbitrary. Caffeine is a stimulant, it's legal. Amphetamines are a stimulant, not legal. Both could similarly enhance performance. Why is one OK and the other is not? Similar arguments could be made for some of the banned PEDs vs. some of the OTC workout enhancers.

Either regulate it consistently or eliminate the rules and anything goes. I don't care. Just get rid of the arbitrary rules where the line is always moving.

Agreed for the most part. Consistency and accuracy odf testing is the biggest issue imo.

Thresholds need to be scientifically based and not just randomly assigned. Unfortunately most arent

As much as I enjoy the game being "pure" I also remember the excitement during the HR/Steriod Era. Attendance and viewership was at a modern day high. Since then early to middle season baseball has really taken a hit. General fans love to watch the home run. Kids love them. And fans love following history. There's not going to be anyone on pace to set the HR in July and August where a lot of teams make a big portion of their revenue based on kids being out of school, vacations and ect..

Just me but if they want to do it and face the possible long term effects then that's up to them.